MONDAY AM, 15TH UPDATE: There were fireworks for some Hollywood action and family movies this Fourth Of July long weekend but not for Hollywood stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts whose new movie bombed. Right now total U.S. and Canadian moviegoing for the holiday looks like $239M, which is trailing last year’s $250M by -4.5% but still the 2nd biggest Fourth Of July long weekend ever.

Paramount’s latest Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is the giant #1 movie and biggest Fourth Of July opening weekend (3-day and 4-day) ever beating Spider-Man 2‘s $88.2M and $115.8M. IMAX broke its global record with the first ever $20M-plus debut ($22.5M global). Domestically, the pic opened with some 3D-only nighttime sneaks on Tuesday ($5.5M), followed by a full release into 4,013 theaters on Wednesday ($37.7M) and Thursday ($21.4M). Now Friday brings in a big $32.9M, Saturday $34.5M, and Sunday $30.2M. That’s still -6% behind 2009’s Transformers 2 despite 3D’s higher ticket prices. Michael Bay’s robot actioner should hit $181M through the Fourth of July, compared to TF2‘s $214M. About 60% of the gross was from 3D. “We expected to start behind the last one,” a Paramount exec tells me. “This one has an ‘A’ CinemaScore and better reviews, so it should play to a better multiple.” Paramount now says it’s the only studio to ever score five consecutive $100+M films.

The movie is doing even better overseas where sequels and 3D are more popular. Internationally the movie is open in 110 countries (but not yet Japan or China) and is up +55% over the franchise’s 2nd installment. Foreign should close in on $235M through Monday for Paramount Pictures International’s biggest opening weekend ever. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon shredded a bunch of box office records as it claimed #1 in 57 of the 58 territories where it was released. The movie was the biggest opening of all-time in 7 countries, led by Korea ($30M), Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and Peru. About 70% of the overall gross was generated by 3D this weekend. Combined with the domestic result, TF3 becomes Hollywood’s third highest grossing worldwide debut ever with $416M global cume for its first 7 days. (TF2 did only $360M in 2009.)

The pairing of veteran Hollywood stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts failed to open Larry Crowne which also was produced and directed and co-written by Hanks. (Did he tell himself to dye his grey hair with the equivalent of black shoe polish? Looked weird…) Even though the two stars did any and all publicity for it, this is a bigger repudiation for Hanks who went on a rare 5-city personal appearance tour, his first since promoting Saving Private Ryan, and met with regional press in every one of those cities. He and Roberts
appeared on one of Oprah’s final shows together in early May, which re-aired this week, but Hanks also personally co-hosted Oprah’s final two blowout shows personally.

Despite all that, the romantic comedy finished a dismal #4 with just a $13M three-day weekend and $16M four-day holiday from a wide release into 2,972 theaters. That’s a very disappointing start for two stars who individually should be able to open a new pic to at least $20M of North American grosses for a three-day weekend and presumably more when paired. (Their last film together, 2007’s Charlie Wilson’s War, also bombed.) Their latest pic received a ‘B’ Cinemascore, but just ‘C+’ from audience members under age 35. Exit polling showed moviegoers were 64% female vs 36% male, and 81% over age 35 vs 19% under age 35. Good thing Universal was only distributing, and good thing the film’s negative cost was only $30M fully financed by Vendome Pictures. But the marketing cost was at least another $30M high with a heavy rotation of expensive TV ads. This is the third movie with major stars to disappoint at the box office this summer following Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern and Jim Carrey in Mr. Popper’s Penguins.

THURSDAY PM/FRIDAY AM, 8TH UPDATE: Paramount says Thursday’s gross was $21.4M for Transformers: Dark Of The Moon. The North American cume is now $64.6M, and 60% of that comes from higher priced 3D tickets. Right now the studio is projecting that Michael Bay’s actioner should make $165M domestic through the Fourth Of July.

WEDNESDAY PM/THURSDAY AM, 6TH UPDATE: The Fourth Of July fireworks are already beginning at the box office. Paramount’s Transformers 3 lit up 2011’s biggest North American opening day, even though it’s Wednesday, beating fellow 3D film Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 which had the year’s highest gross on a Friday. The Michael Bay 3D actioner hit $37.7M Wednesday, which included the $8M from midnight screenings. Adding in Tuesday’s pre-midnight 3D sneaks of $5.5M, the cume is now $43.2M. Paramount itself had put the range possible between $35M-$40M. IMAX accounted for $3.3M on 146 domestic sites and $1.7M internationally on 89 sites for a total $5.1M (including Tuesday and Wednesday cumes). Pirates 4 set the 2011 record by opening to $34.8M including midnight shows.

Surprisingly considering the mixed reviews, audiences gave the pic an ‘A’ CinemaScore. Exit polling showed that 62% Males gave it an ‘A-‘ and 38% Females an ‘A’, while 55% under age 25 gave it an ‘A’ and 45% over 25 an ‘A-‘.

Wednesday’s domestic numbers are bigger than Transformers 1 but don’t better Transformers 2. However, international for Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is expected to come in higher than previous installments and set a record for the franchise’s global cume as it rolls out in 110 countries over Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Paramount today estimated an opening day foreign take of $32.5M, which is 38% ahead of Transformers 2 for the markets that have opened. The overseas cume with previews is estimated at $36.6M for a global take so far of $80M.Transformers 2 did 10% more grosses outside the U.S., and this threequel should be a notch better — $165+M. That means the global cume for Dark Of The Moon should range from a low of $315M to more likely $365M for its first seven days in theaters.

Notable includes Asia where Korea which opened to a massive $5.03M from 1,291 theaters, which is 217% up on Pirates 4 and 114% up on Transformers 2 for the biggest opening day of all time in Korea for any film. (The studio says 53% of business was from 3D.) Hong Kong and Singapore scored the biggest non-holiday opening day of all time and the 3rd biggest opening day of all time. Malaysia had the biggest opening day ever, and the biggest single day ever, and biggest 3D gross ever. No records were set in Australia ($2.8M from 392 theaters, 32% ahead of Transformers 2 with 71% of business in 3D), New Zealand ($335K from 87 theaters, which was 3% behind Transformers 2).

In Europe, the UK opened to $3.5M from 494 locations, and previews take the total to $4.17M. The opening was 10% up on Pirates 4 (also a Wednesday opening) but 25% below Transformers 2 which opened on a Friday. (And 70% of business was from 3D.) Germany was 1/3 bigger than Transformers 2. France opened to $3M, including previews, from 700 theaters for the biggest opening day of 2011. Russia following the World Premiere with a huge $3.1M from its opening day, rising to $4.2M with previews. The opening was 76% up on Transformers 2 but 35% down on Pirates 4.

In Latin America, most markets open today or tomorrow in the region but the early numbers are very strong: Peru is the biggest opening day of all time and the biggest day of all time for any movie. It is 153% ahead of Pirates 4 and 273% ahead of Transformers 2.

WEDNESDAY 9 AM UPDATE: The only 2011 movie to do more was The Hangover Part II which opened to $10.4M midnights. By contrast, Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 did $4.7M midnights. Now the comps: Transformers 1 in 2007 opened wide at 8 PM on July 3rd, which was a Monday night, and did $8.8M for all shows. Transformers 2 opened wide at midnight two years ago and did $16 million. If tracking is any indication, this threequel should do box office between the two prior films but closer to Transformers 1. So Paramount expected around $10M total for Tuesday’s pre-midnight 3D-only screenings and Wednesday’s midnight and later shows. The exact tally turned out to be a bigger $13.5M — $5.5M for 3D-only pre-midnight Tuesday screenings, and $8M for Wednesday mightnights. Remember, only 2,700 3D screens opened Tuesday pre-midnight. Then another 300 to 500 2D screens opened at midnight Wednesday. By the time the movie releases wide today, it’ll play in 4,011 locations.

Paramount is expecting this latest installment in the franchise to open less than the last one in the U.S. but play to better multiples. Grosses over the seven days from Tuesday night through the Fourth Of July should hit $200M, though the studio keeps lobbing lowball estimates of $150M-$165M despite the higher 3D ticket prices. (‘Transformers 3′ $150M For First 6 Days?)

TUESDAY PM: Bring sunglasses and earplugs to Transformers 3 or you’ll walk out of the theater like one Paramount exec who told me he was not just blinded by the 3D but also deafened by the battles. I hope he was just kidding, because you don’t want to miss those cheap shots at Megan Fox (like the robots who complained that the other girl was mean). Actually, Michael Bay wasn’t kidding when he said certain shots took a year to get right. This is just some of the reaction as Transformers: Dark Of The Moon opened in 3D starting at 9 PM tonight. I’ll keep writing about this phenom for the next seven days in what’s shaping up to be a very loooong Fourth Of July holiday week.

A few seconds after I posted this, the film’s 14-time Academy Award nominee re-recording mixer Greg P. Russell emailed that, “I had my technician go over to the Paramount theater to make sure it was perfect. Just looking out for Michael. If you’re sitting close in that room, you’re screwed. Because I know it sounds awesome. Best sound mix of any Bay film yet. The irony is that the Visual FX and Sound will more than likely be nominated for Oscars by their peers who know the difference.”

Russell, who spent six months doing what he calls the best work of his 30-year career, says many movie theaters are presenting the pic in the brand-new 7.1 sound. Bay has said, “This is the most complex intricate soundtrack that me and my Academy Award-winning sound team have done. They really outdid themselves to make this a big picture experience.”

How much is riding on this film? A lot, judging by Paramount’s pull-out-all-the-stops tude. (Paramount Making Too Many 3D Demands?) Bay already has called the chief executives of major theater chains imploring them to show Transformers: Dark Of The Moon in a way that makes 3D look brighter and sharper. Since the darkness of 3D has started to impact movie satisfaction. (Michael Bay Writes To Theater Projectionists)

Reviews are mixed to bad but better than the really rotten ones for Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (which we all agree was horrid).

869 Comments

Kyle • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

saw it last night on the Paramount lot. first hour and a half is your stereotypical Bay film, but the last hour is akin to an amusement park ride. if you’re going to go see it, don’t sit there like a stick in the mud and not enjoy yourself, it’s easily the “best” film of the three.

Anom • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Wow, it broke the record for biggest opening day in the last 6 months!!! That’s the highest profile record of them all.

youbetcha • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hey, Hankster, keep making fun of everyone in America except the elite in the northeast and west coast, and see how fast the rest of the tea baggers, ignorant, NORMAL, people stop PAYING to watch your movies! BOYCOTT HANKS!!!!

Fonzie777 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

RightO youbetcha, I wouldn’t give a dime to see his movies.

Auntie Rand • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Oh, please. Tom Hanks too wild for you? Oh, God, just go back to the old folks home and complain about the weather and kids walking through your yards with the rest of the over 80 set.

Gene • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You said it Brother. Hollywood POS

RayJay • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Idiot. As a retired Air Force NCO, I can tell you that Tom Hanks has done many things for the U.S. military (active-duty and retirees), which means he cares for folks beyond Hollywood and the Northeast. Like most tea-bag loonies, you are ill-informed.

mitch • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

He and Spielberg have you fooled sir, that he got unlimited carte Blanche to film hours and hours of footage for a least 3 full length movies, and more than likely got a write off on the help provided our service personnel.
I admire our military and that they keep us safe, but your statement about others opinion not counting for much was exactly what your service to the country helped that right!

denroy3 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hardly ill-informed…and your insulting name-calling makes me care little for your post. If you had anything relevant to say I don’t know what it was. Hanks is a political animal these days and that’s a fact. And it’s hurt his reputation.

Well • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Well as an Active Duty NCO, I can tell you that we don’t support people that go against our Constitution. He can support anyone he want’s to, but we will obey our orders of “All enemies foreign and DOMESTIC”. The communist, liberal, progressives, socialists are all DOMESTIC enemies that our fore-fathers either fought against and/or fled their home countries to get away from that kind of tyranny.

Jullou • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Thank you for your service, but many military are well aware of the leftist agenda. I too have a military connection. Yes, Tom has done some good things, but watch the some of the subtle comments. Research what Julia Roberts has said in the past…… she graduated from high school yet tells highly educated people what to think just because she is an actress. Hanks went took theater classes. Okay, that’s something, but not enough to try to change public opinion. Leftist slogans weather subtle or blatant are Marxist tactics that lead to doom. Look at Greece. And by the way, conservatives have a RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. The problem with leftists is they have managed to keep us silent for too long and they brainwash their minions into thinking that anytime a conservative speaks out, they call us racists or extremists. No longer now that they have managed to collapse many American systems. REAL AMERICANS ARE HURTING OVER OBAMNOMIS (MARXISM)!

Anonymous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I read these sanctimonious comments and I’m just astonished at the rampant idiocy of Americans about the US and the rest of the world. Here’s some breaking news: the US is a bankrupt deadbeat nation surviving on loans from countries it despises (China, Saudi Arabia et al) to wage war on countries it neither understands nor gives a shit about. The US only cares about oil. We are NOT fighting for freedom. We have become the very military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against in the early 60s.

So just what is our wonderful beloved military protecting? Our great disintegrated infrastructure, our crappy jobs and massive unemployment, our grinding poverty, our world-class drug abuse (illegal and prescription), our enormous pre-diabetes obesity epidemic, our destroyed middle-class, our barely-functioning public school system, our population with the greatest attention deficit syndrome known to man, our egregious religious and moral values founded on fear and ignorance, our archaic financial system that only benefits Wall Street, our political system that prefers to tear the country apart than fix it? Just what is it we are protecting ourselves from?

Darrick • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

To RayJay: You are a retired Air Force NCO? Really? Anyone that retires from the military as an E-6 after serving 20+ years is not the sharpest tool in the shed….

Tom Berman • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Very well put. Thank you.

JoeBoo • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

An NCO is an enlisted paygrade E4 and above. The paygrade E7 to E9 is consider Senior Noncommissioned Officer.

Now you can resume bashing each other.

Darrick • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Negative JoeBoo: In the USAF, an E-4 (Senior Airman) is NOT an NCO. NCO is E-5 to E-6. SNCO is E7 to E9. Get your facts straight. NOW you can resume bashing each other!

(Now, in the old school, E-4 was referred to as a “Buck Sergeant”).

Anonymous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Wake up Hollywood …you and your icons like Hanks have lost the half of America like me. We are on to you. My family loves movies but will never attend another movie of any actor who keeps shoving their political messages and fav politicians down our throats. I used to love Hanks movies but they all went in trash and will not attend another.

PatriotPiper • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I couldn’t agree more my friend. I mostly watch Netflix streaming these days so that I can cherry pick watch I want to see. I shut down my HBO account because of Bill Mahr-on and Hanks’ comments about America’s “racist” wars!!! You give an average guy a little bit of money and he thinks he’s a god. Well, Mr. Hanks, you’re clearly NOT!

Repugnant Republican • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Perhaps us “repugnant” republicans with our long memories found certain cast members unbearable. A hard and expensive lesson learned in regards to casting actors/actresses that can’t keep their noses out of partisan politics.

amny • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I love that you posted the “repugnant republican” comment SHE(horseface roberts) made.The sad fact is that her acting abilities tend to be the s.o.s. movie after movie.A ‘one trick poney” if you will…lol Do you think they are too stupid to realize that when they insult a political party they are insulting THE VERY PEOPLE WHO PAY TO SEE THEIR MOVIES?I used to love Hanks but his true ‘leanings’ are out of the closet.I have always loved his movies and was a real fan of B.Buddies.I would go so far to to the “hands covering my ears..singing..’lalalalala..i can’t hear you”whenever someone would try to convince me he leaned that way..lmao.I really wish I didn’t know WHAT his politics are.BLAH

LlightSaber • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I couldn’t agree with you more.
Remember his remarks last year about America treating the Japanese and the Muslims differently because they “look” different. America’s Professor, my a.s.s.?

And don’t forget Matt Damon, who savaged Sarah Palin in an interview during the 2008 election cycle.

I just keeping adding actors to my “objectionable” list. Then whenever one of them opens in a new movie, I go everywhere and type it.

It’s my way of fighting back. I’ve had it with the liberal, Hollywood elites. And I think plenty of Amerians have had their fill also.

fvfdgm1 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I do the same thing! There are actors whose movies / TV shows I won’t watch because they, in effect, have called me “racist, etal” for supporting the Tea Party & having political policy differences with the president. They have taken my $$ over the years & now feel no responsibility to the ppl who have made them rich! I stopped watching the Law & Order shows a few yrs ago when the “bad guy” was either a Christian, a republican or conservative or a member of the military. I like “Criminal Minds” but cannot watch the new Criminal Minds – Suspect Behavior (?) because everytime I see Jeanne Garofolo, all I hear is “you are racist!” I can watch Susan Sarandon even tho we are political opposites, because she criticizes policies & doesn’t seem to be out to destroy ppl. (As far as I know) Also, the movies that I see are good dtorues w/o political agendas. I just saw Larry Crowne & thoroughly enjoyes the STORY ….. no politics!!

absolutelyanonymous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

well, i work in hollywood (whatever that is) and consider myself a libertarian or constitutionalist. bush pissed AND puked on the constitution and the bill of rights while giving us the finger. obama so far has mostly just pissed on it. i’m also a social progressive. and believe in “hands off” government. so what’s confusing to me is the whole liberal vs. conservative thing. my take is that it’s a simple stupid polarization strategy by corporate USA to keep the uneducated and unaware fighting each other. so, c’mon people, the presidents don’t matter. it’s the mega corps and wall street that run the show – defense, energy, health and finance. and, here’s the most exciting news, what you do doesn’t matter any more. unless you have 100 million in assets your vote doesn’t count.

genique • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I stopped going to the movies 10 years ago. Why would anyone want to pay to see trash and keep these Hanks and Roberts and other big time Hollywood asses in money. Do they have any idea how the rest of us are really living from day to day and worrying.

us • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

youbetcha: I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER !!! LET’S HURT THESE LIB ACTORS WHERE IT HURTS

Ty • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Not sure why Hanks expressing his political views is “anti-American.”

Freedom of speech, anyone?

effactor • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hey TY, Let me try to explain things to you.
-Hanks expressing his views is NOT “anti-american”.
-What some people beleive is that his LIBERAL view of the way the world should be is in conflict with the American constitution and/or mans freedom in general.
-Telling the public your political views and then ask them to give you more millions of dollars, after you made them angry is stupid.
-And don’t think its brave of him. He’s worth hundreds of millions. It’s arrogant and disconnected. He’s a player in a business that discriminates against hiring conservatives. So its not time to shed a tear for Hanks when conservatives react back.

amny • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

And freedome of speech he had when he ‘expressed’ his political views for all to see.That was a risk he chose to make.The people who refuse to see his OR her movies are expressing their freedom of speech by chosing not to watch their movies.I just hope they keep on expressing their freedom of speech by giving to a local shelter any money they would have wasted on one of their movies.Better yet..give it to your local wounded warrier program..THey need it…Hanks and Roberts don’t!!!

bryan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

@amny, it’s not the expression, it’s the views. The viewwwwwws!

Miguel • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

No way Larry Crowne only cost $30 mil. Below the line, maybe. What’s with Tom and Rita being BFFs with Nia Vardalos? She is the worst. My Big Fat Greek Gunt was a fluke – badly written but a fun movie. That thing where she played a drag queen was like the worst sit-com stretched out to 90 mins.
I think that debt is paid off, Tom.

ActressInL.A. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

WON’T SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s a slap in the face to all actors in L.A. working on their craft for Michael Bay to put a Victoria’s Secret model in Megan Fox’s place. Then she mentions in a tv interview, “how she was learning acting while shooting the movie”. No respect for M.B. anymore. Guess that’s his mo, show up and meet girls at events and the Skybar in W. Hollywood, then put them in his movies to try and boink them. Lots of people in H-wood are laughing at M.B. behind his back in Hwood. That’s probably why they keep taking cheap shots at Megan. No respect for Shia, either, now. Signed, Disgusted Actor In L.A.

me • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Amen!

Amen again • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Boycott the frauds in Hollywood. They are the most unpatriotic people in our good US of A. They play-act patriotic characters in movies, but in real time they are sell-outs for the almighty buck!

GovtHostage • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I agree wholeheartedly, Hollywood elites hate our military and look down on them as well as middle America. I wouldn’t waste my money on the trash in Hollywood, who support pedophiles, murderers, terrorists, and anyone who hates this country. They will take the hard earned money of those they detest just like the politicians in DC. There are a few conservatives in Hollywood who appreciate and love this country, but they are a minority. Most of those in the film and TV industry are sanctimonious and pompous liberals.

JohnDoe • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Do me a favor, and throw your television into the trash can. Because everything you watch on television comes from the “Liberal Hollywood Elite”.

Dumbass.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yup, then you can stay home and watch your radio.

Jack • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

A word about the so-called “liberal elite.” People drawn to the movie business and who succeed in it at the creative level often found their passion in literature, theatre and film – in other words, the arts. The arts are about people, both strong and weak, the human condition. Of course, people who study such will be drawn to politics which care more about people, both strong and weak, the human condition. Where’s the mystery?

Elemental • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yes. In regard to Hanks and why his movie failed. He’s worked hard to push his politics on people. Also avoiding certain media outlets because he holds a bias. It’s been “in your face” in my opinion. A great actor should be apolitical. He is a great actor.

sd • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

First of all, moron, Hollywood has a long history of being patriotic supporters of the military. Ever hear of the USO? Yeah, those Hollywood liberals you hate so much travel to hot spots across the world to entertain the troops and give them a little taste of home. And don’t forget Hollywood was a major player in selling war bonds during WWII and made pro-war propaganda films for the war department. Do a little research before spouting off nonsense.

Amen to the UN-Patriotic Hollywood libs. I don’t spend my hard earned money on any of the liberal actors’ work (if you can call it that)

LL • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Huh? Last time I looked, being a sellout to the “almighty buck” IS patriotic! (Some might call it capitalism…)

Slightly Amused • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Know what would be really great? If this entire comments section was filled with absurd, embarrassing political posts from people on the far right passing themselves off as patriotic Americans — a label they have earned, apparently, simply by disagreeing with Tom Hanks political views — who have roughly the same capacity for nuanced debate as Rush Limbaugh on a crazy Oxy bender. Oh, wait, it is? AWESOME!

Auntie Rand • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hey, “Atlas Shrugged” didn’t do dollar one. Why? Because only the tea baggers care about the BS you go on and on about. Shut the f up. Thanks and have a nice day.

ari • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

What about the actors in New York, London, Paris, Singapore, Seoul, Shanghai, Hong Kong… Wasn’t Lauren Bacall a model before she met Bogart and Howard Hawks. Whatever Michael Bay’s methods are, he has become the most financially successful director of all time with this movie and isn’t that finally what it’s about?

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yeah, except Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and probably James Cameron arethe most successful directors and I don’t think they use models for the leads in their films.

effactor • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I don’t know about the acting quality, I just didn’t beleive it. Like the 1st transformers, the scene introducing MEGAN FOX BENT OVER that car. I just didn’t beleive it, Megan Fox’s ASS in those daisy dukes. Just didn’t identify that perfect perfect ASS with the character. I felt like she was in those tight shorts just to make sure I stayed in my seat; didn’t loose interest; and tell other people about it.
Then when she turned around and started saying her lines. I realised she wasn’t even talking to Shia Lebouf she was talking directly to me. I just didn’t beleive it. when she told me to come to her house because I was the only guy who could make her feel complete, I just didn’t beleive it. But here I am laying in the bushes. waiting….waiting….waiting.

Written for comedic puposes only. I couldn’t live further away from L.A. within the U.S. and I have a life.

reader • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

he put a model in his movie because no acting was or ever will be required. why would you think anyone else would have been considered? did you see the other two movies? it’s not like they were scouring the indie circuit for nuanced, quirky actresses, then just said the hell with it and went with megan fox and then a victoria’s secret girl.

Carl • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

boo hoo. I am sure MB is really worried about it.

JoeTheFilmmaker • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

@ActressinLA Welcome to the new Hollywood. You have no idea how bad it really is. That stripper Diablo Cody is directing now. It’s how Hollywood works. It is full of crazy libs with no talent. However, I chimed in for a different reason.

To illustrate Actress’ point, I want to add in Jon Favreau’s escapades. Favreau used to be a chubby actor no one wanted to look at. He “co-wrote” a movie, then moves up into this Hollywood clique. Starts pumping iron, and now is a meat head. Jon is one of the biggest hypocrite in Hollywood. That loser goes out and claims he wants to save jobs for the “crew” in LA. He wants to save LA. lol. But the guy goes out and “directs” a blockbuster movie with $100m budget, and makes a stink about shooting in LA. BUT, he casts himself in that movie. So I say, WTF??? He cries about saving jobs and gives the LA crew a temp job for 6 weeks. But what about that prominent role he gave himself? he could have given that role in IM2 to a unknown actor, and the way that clique works, he would be accepted and would have a fruitful career. I guess when Jon Favreau says he wants to keep the jobs in LA, he actually means he cant make a movie without them. I’ve witnessed many films get directed by the crew in the recent decade.

There are two Hollywoods now. There’s many of us still out here who despise Hollywood and the studios. There are new ideas and films, except the filmmakers are not being nurtured. Only celebrities and Favreau’s crew are working.

Oh, what?? Tom Hanks made another POS? I missed that.

cookmeyer1970 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

you lost me at “crazy libs with no talent”, Joe. what the fuck does one’s political affiliation have to do with it? you act like some hollywood expert, but if you were, you’d know that it’s not about talent nor does it hinge on one’s political affiliation. the creatives tend to skew liberal, but they’re for the most part not calling the shots. the execs, the money guys, they’re mostly conservatives. it’s about the club, and anyone can be in it if they have the money and the popularity.

Paulita • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

When Julia Roberts said Republicans were in the dictionary between “reptile” & “repulsive,” it occurred to us that she was in the dictionary between “home-wreaking ho” and “talentless shrew.” These Hollywood dingbats with eighth grade educations that call people stupid for not thinking exactly like they do deserve no reward & are dixie-chicked, especially during patriotic holidays. They are the ones making this political, particularly when they blacklist people with another political philosophy.

Jerry • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Sorry there pal, just recently on Fox News and Drudge, there was a clip of one of the many liberals in Hollywood saying that there was definitely an agenda, and there was a bias toward conservatives. He actually said that if you were conservative, they would pass you over for a liberal actor instead. Don’t sit there and tell us that there is no political agenda or bias! There is and Hollywood is it!

rod falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

you obviously know nothing of hollywood. i do. there is not one (zero) conservative “money guy” in hollywood. and yes everything at times hinges on one’s political affiliations. even more important than affiliations is the relativistic, narcissistic mindset (ie. liberal-totalitarian) that requires others of its own ilk in order to be reassured and to function. in other words, if you hang with the power, even symbolically, even in your own mind and nowhere else, you’re far more likely to work in this town. you are exceedingly naiive, at best. or maybe you’re a lefty. how’d you get that way?

CleanFun • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

One’s political affiliation has a lot to do with it actually. It doesn’t take a genius to notice that liberals are using their movies as a soapbox to spew their repulsive agenda, rather than making good movies.

Neil • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It’s the NEW knee jerk reaction to anything you don’t like. Label it, liberal. But don’t feel sad. This kind of thing begs to be a film project.

pmod • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

cookmeyer,
“the creatives tend to skew liberal, but they’re for the most part not calling the shots. the execs, the money guys, they’re mostly conservatives.”

“the creatives tend to skew liberal” and the execs are mostly conservative????!!!!

Who in the FUCK are trying to kid????!!

Only in the land of make believe.

steve • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Sounds like you are so very hooked up in Hollywood.
What,are you from Iowa?
Hollywood screams left and Hanks has shot off his
mouth once too often.
Id rather imbibe a quart of my own urine than spend
money on his film.
So,there.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Thank you! The same goes for the supposed liberal bias in the media. The reporters might lean liberal but the owners certainly don’t.

Deby • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Ditto to Paulita!!!! Well said!

Rick Watson • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Perhaps actors like Hanks will eventually learb to keep his/her political views a secret and not get all activist to “change the world”…the studis will eventually get the message.

PatriotPiper • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Just switch to Hulu Plus, Blockbuster, or — my preference — Netflix and cherry pick what you want to watch. If the libs hate Fox News Channel, they can “change the channel”, but if we don’t like what they say or do, we can do the same thing.

I get more out of the older Hollywood blockbusters, even in black and white without CGI and HD than I do from some of the video games and poorly scripted, agenda driven drivel that is used to trash the celluloid of today. It’s no wonder that theaters that were once full, even in the ’80’s, are now half empty, or worse!

Brent • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Whether or not Hollywood’s “full of crazy libs with no talent,” the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Don’t twist this in your political prism. The investors are the one’s taking the risk. It’s called capitalism. Stop whining about not having any pull in the industry. Take that envy and jealousy and move up the food chain like everyone else. If you really had something to say that audiences wanted to pay to hear, you’d have a star on your door. Methinks you don’t. Now go flip my burger, I’m in a hurry, son.

Joe Dredd • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Anyone going to a Transformers film to see “ACTING”, has issues that no director or therapist can ever help with.

Signed,

Working Actor in L.A. disgusted with Disgusted Actor in L.A..

Belle • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Ha, ha, ha! :) Points to Working Actor! :)

Dorothy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hate to break it to you, honey, but that’s how 90% of casting is done in Hollywood. Trust me. I work at an agency.

peach • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

doesn’t make it right

Transmorphers • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I don’t think Bay is interested in a 3-D tracking shot of an actress’ “craft”.

Dorian • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Unless that “craft” is a tight ass. Witness the opening shot of TF3.

anonymous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“WON’T SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s a slap in the face to all actors in L.A. working on their craft for Michael Bay to put a Victoria’s Secret model in Megan Fox’s place.”

No acting skills required to replace Megan Fox. What did she show you in Transformers, Jonah Hex, that movie with Simon Pegg, and Jennifer’s Body that makes you think she can act? You make it sound like the new girl replaced Meryl Streep.

Rocco • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Seems that because you think this is not good, maybe I’ll like it. You seem a little light in your loafers.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Light in his loafers? Smart in his choice of movies is more like it. He can go see a good movie with a hot actress instead of a noisy pile of 3D robots and still be more man than yo’ daddy.

Trafalgar • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You seem a little dumb in your head.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Possibly. I saw Thor (for Natalie Portman.) But not dumb enough to watch ANY Transformers film.

AaronSch • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yeah, and Michel Bay is laughing his ass off all the way to the bank.

Fredmertz72 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

As a man, SWING! She also said they wanted someone comfortable in semi-nude positions. as a model she can do that very well.

Anonymous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

you had respect for mb?

effactor • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Michael Bay movies are slap in the face to acting in general. They’re CGI and EXPLOSIONS that appeal to kids and the lowest common denominator.

Its capitol not craft.

BrianR • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

In other words Its FUN and Not-Depressing unlike most artsy flicks that make you hurl or want to kill yourself after seeing them.

John V. Karavitis • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

John V. Karavitis No disrespect, my friend, but what they did in that movie is typical Hollywood, plain and simple. Movies are down to a formula now. It’s been proven that even the actors aren’t the key determinant as to whether a movie will be a blockbuster, rather, it comes down to key elements of the storyline. This was proven by some guy who ran linear regression analyses to figure out what characteristics blockbuster movies have in common. This particular story is told in the book “Supercrunchers”, it’s a good read. John V. Karavitis

Lucas Schaeffer • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Kyle, if they made your Fiasco Heights, I guarantee it’d be better than the whole trilogy combined.

Beatrix Kiddo • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

TF3 is gonna be a tough sell to people burned by TF2. It doesn’t help ticket sales when both the Director and Star go on TV and say, “Our last movie sucked.”

John V. Karavitis • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

John V. Karavitis People burned by T2 will most likely still go to see T3. Reasons? The biggest is that a fan of Transformers wants to see the Autobots and Decepticons in action, and the plot be damned. The second is that it’s been a dull, slow, boring year, with a dead economy and a dead job market, and people want to get out of the house, even if just to forget their worries for a couple of hours. I mean, heck, The Green Lantern didn’t just suck, it reeked, nevertheless, people went to see it, even after having heard the reviews. John Karavitis

carly • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

another absolutely crappy film along with the other one about Paris. Garbage!

Saw Midnight • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Somehow based on your comment I don’t think you actually saw the other one about Paris. About as far from garbage as you can get.

American Patriot • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

On 4th of July weekend, We the People will not give our money or support to libtards like Roberts and Hanks. Hanks, who played Forrest Gump and Saved Private Ryan should know that those movies earned lots and lots of money because it made us feel patriotic. Now that we know he is a libtard, we don’t want anything to do with his movies. Guess who still has money? Not your average libtard walking the streets hopeing for change and stuff yo. Until Hollyweed understands that hating America is not cool, we will find other things to do with our money. http://www.freewethepeople.com

Paul • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It’s cute how you think conservatives who eat, sleep and breathe politics like yourself actually make or break a movie’s box office. Good luck with that.

CATHERINE • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

STRAP IN AND WATCH HOW MUCH WE HURT LIBTARD actor’s movies, they finally got a guy in the WH that is totally destroying our nation and this time he is bankrupting paying liberals too, just ask them, 428,000 lost their jobs yesterday, sure there were some paying liberals in that number

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

What you conservaturds need to ask yourselves is this: did the man who played in Saving Private Ryan, produced Band of Brothers and gave financial support to the WW2 veterans memorial change for the worse or did you? Think long and hard before you answer and then hang your head in shame.

Em • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I am going to assume that you are an adult on this website. “Libtards”? Really? You are using a form of the word “retard” to make fun of people you don’t agree with. Wow.
Grow up and stop using a term to make fun of developmentally disabled people to try to denigrate people you disagree with.
There is freedom of speech, but there is also something called education and maturity. Try discovering those today.

cookmeyer1970 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

please take this over to a political website. this is a movie site if you haven’t noticed.

beautifulnrich1 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Spot on !
the actors/actresses that have shown the public their political side can expect to be left on the cutting room floor by true conservatives. we do our homework. it’s our right to not spend our money to support them or their movies.
American’s speak with their pocketbooks.

bryan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

em, I like how your comment came right after Dr. Snake’s. Let’s all go back to our corners, get our narratives synchronized, and come out fighting!

Heidi • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Tom Hanks, another, hollyweirdo I won’t spending money to see..

Sgt. York • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Um….dumbass…did you even read the article above? Can you even read?

“STRAP IN AND WATCH HOW MUCH WE HURT LIBTARD actor’s movies.”

It’s happening now.

fckoffpsy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

So, to use your logic then….all of the films that are blockbusters are from rethuglican wingnuts? Johnny Depp who lives in France because he hates conservative soul and country destroying asssholes like you, and Steven Spielberg will be very surprised to hear they’re conservatives now as their pics gross 1 billion worldwide.

Moviegoing Public (Member) • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You may think that those of us on the Right are fools, but we’re not. I am more “liberal” than any Leftist out of Hollywood, or LA. I was going to see Larry Crowne, until Hanks opened his big mouth about how great Obama is…so, like millions of people like me, I’ll keep my money in my pocket.

Most of the movies suck, anyway.

Tami • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

We conservatives don’t think it will break the movie…we’re just going to waste our money on crap films made by washed up, whacked out liberals…you go spend your money on this piece of feces film..it will leave you with less money you have to spend on your washed up, whacked out liberal president..

Amen, again • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hanks, how do you live with yourself? YOU ARE A FRAUDS!

jjames • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I’m done with Tom Hanks movies, you say this is not for political comment’s , i will differ, Tom Hanks and his liberal friends are very political, so with that, their are a great number of conservatives like me, who will not give money to these people.

SoWhat • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Then why did it flop? Nice part of being a conservative is that 2 + 2 still = 4

sd • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Because the trailer looked awful and the premise was boring.

Jeff • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yes, Repubs invading Iraq was as logical as 2+2=4.

Linda • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I am happy to see that Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts tanked again. The actors trash the American people and way of life and oddly enough their movies don’t make money. Like me, most of my friends refuse to see movies starring these liberals who incidentally mostly do only have 8th grade educations. You can argue with the reasons but you can’t argue with the bottom line.

And let’s be honest and I am a boomer, these people are too old for romantic comedies.

effactor • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hanks hasn’t had the popularity or monster hit since he did that crap with the Pledge of Allegiance on the 9/11 fund raiser.

AmericaFirst • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Cute? No Paul, it isn’t cute, it’s everyday Americans making a decision to not pay money to see movies where actors/actresses ridicule then for their beliefs. Think about it, you are talking about half of the Country, seems to me with those kind of numbers, movie studios would be a little nervous.

bob wire • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Excellent comment. Hanks and “his people” must have realized this movie was going nowhere fast and even had it being advertised on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Maybe they realize when it comes to “real”, that means money and paying for a ticket. Something Patriotic people will always do when there is something worth actually paying for. Apparently the lib crowd doesnt believe in following Hanks, if that means paying for it…

Rona • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This is interesting – I so often see actors who put down conservatives, Fox news and its anchors rushing to get on Hannity or OReilly when they have a book come out or a movie come out – from Whoopi Goldberg to Kevin Spacey you name it – and the thing is – they are always treated very well.
But i love movies – would love to go see an enjoyable movie this weekend but nothing looks interesting. Who = WHO? – thought Larry Crowne was a good idea even on paper? This is a Lifetime movie at best. And does Hollywood even understand that Hanks and Roberts are so 1990s? We used to go see movies because they were in them but those days are over and out – no actor is a draw anymore. There is no ‘A’ list. There are no ‘names’. Give us a decent story (and shut your yap on politics when you are doing the junket).

Molly Brown • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

If I had a choice of seeing a Tom Hanks movie or a Gary Sinise movie…..IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE GARY SINISE.
Tom Hanks is a putz….and a freaky “liberal” putz at that.

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

welll… Johnny Depp and Robert Downey still are pretty good box office draws.. but who the hell thought hanks in a love story would be a good idea?? And washed up Julia as his leading lady?? Hahahahah… hanks would be in the middle with thumbs pointing very slightly up due to past success.. add in Julia.. who is a thumbs down and hasn’t been in any successful movie since Pretty Woman.. and average it out and you get a thumbs down pic.. might as well throw in Dr Crazy Tom Cruise while you are at it..

LlightSaber • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I watched Run Silent, Run Deep today. What a movie: People speak to each other, wonderful acting, a great patriotic story line and real men. How do Shia LaBoef and Robert Pattinson match up against the likes of Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster?

bryan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hey, thanks, I’ll take this as a recommendation and queue it up on Netflix if it’s available.

catherine • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

AMENAMEN……..THANK YOU NOW LET’S STOP USING ANY ADVERTISERS AT MSNBC AND NBC….LET THE LIBERALS SUPPORT THEIR OWN GARBAGE

Book Guy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Are you guys lost? I think you want braindead.com not deadline.com.

Tom • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

A handful of malcontents with limited vocabularies are paid to hop from site to site and anonymously embarrass themselves with misdirected hate and anger under numerous names and identities. Look at is as the idiocy it is and it’s actually pretty funny. Just ignore them. They’ll move on to another page and piss all over somebody else when Drudge points them in another direction. It’s their therapy. Otherwise they’d gnaw at their ankles in a gutter somewhere.

Ridiculous • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You guys are total weirdos. What are you talking about? What the F does a movie like Larry Crowne have to do with politics? There are a lot of asinine comments on this website but these are up there with the best of them. Keep drinking your own Kool-Aid in the Rush/Fox/Drudge echo-chamber. Mmm…the taste of crazy is delicious!

amny • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You don’t ‘get’ what these people are talking about?The story on this headline here is that the movie tanked.The reason is because most people were insulted by the leading actors POLITICAL comments.If you can’t figure that out then please step out of your mamma’s basement for a breath of fresh air.A nice shower wouldn’t hurt either.Clean up,get up and get out of the house you louse!!! lmao

SickOfConservatives • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This is A MOVIE BLOG, PEOPLE! Take your fucking Fox News/Drudge bullshit somewhere else! Or better yet whatever happened to that white homeland in the Pacific Northwest you fuckers have been talking about for years? Please go and leave America to those of us who really believe in it and are loyal to our President. You can have two channels there: the 700 Club and Fox News.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

bryan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

My moby-dar sounded the klaxons.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Thanks for making up my mind about seeing Larry Crowne. It’s “patriots” like you that soil the name.

You realize the word “libtard” isn’t even remotely clever, right? Stop making fools of yourself.

Matt • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

*yourselves. Don’t want to be pounced on for that.

bryan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It’s kind of sad that you’re expecting to be pounced on, isn’t it. Civility’s just all right with me.

wjpbm • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“You realize the word “libtard” isn’t even remotely clever, right?”

The same could be said of anything coming out of hollywood right now.

vanderfk • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Until Hollyweed understands that hating America is not cool, we will find other things to do with our money.”

Amen to that! People are getting tired of the hypocrites. They know how the talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they show their true colors.

terminatrix • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Agree, I USED to like Hanks, but then he spoke to us all like we’re 8 years old, and told us HE wanted BARACK OBAMA for HIS president. Or else he would STOMP his feet! See, Hanks used to seem like a real guy, someone we could all relate to, just a regular slob. Funny and easy going type person, he seemed to be. Now he is smarter than the rest of us, he knows more, he is like our lecturing dad, always correcting us stupid children. Not interested in his movies anymore. Ditto Roberts, I’ve never gotten her appeal anyway. The directors like her horse laugh, they always make sure it’s in the movie ads so we can all know she can BURST OUT LAUGHING!

Rick Watson • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

RIGHT all the way….IF the Progressives keep their stranglhold on hollywood like they have on the economy then it too will fail.sigh and I used to like Hanks but stupid is as stupid does.

Jeff • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

In other words, you used to love Hanks, but then you were brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh. Wonderful to see you can think for yourself.

william • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Right on. Love the way you think

Dorothy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

We, the common people who you like to think are stupid,ignorant, inbreds, shoot birds and squirrels and cook em on a pit in our backyard,……love God and Country, are college educated, work and raise our children, and we can make or break Hollywood by our sheer numbers. If you continue to make us out to be imbecils and uncool, we will boycott everyone of your talentless films!

And it’s not that anyone thinks you are common or stupid or ignorant, it’s that you’re annoying because you’re hypocrites. Living in middle America doesn’t automatically confer upon you the kind of righteousness with which you write these posts. I’m not better than you because I work in Hollywood and you’re not morally superior to me because you live in a small town.

To quote As Good As It Gets: “Go sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.”

Becky • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Amen!!

Kurwood Derby • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I’m with U all the way, Bud!

Tami • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I second that! I’m thrilled! their film flopped…whacked out liberals don’t deserve a dime.

kay • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

i won’t see tom hanks because of his politics that he spouts off. He has his 1st amendment rights, I have my hard earned money. When he gets his head out of his southern behind orifice about simple economics, I’ll take out my money from my pocket book.

Matt • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I agree AmericanPatriot…

Hanks should keep his nose out of politics… besides… anyone who would vote for Obama again AND publicly admit it deserves this!!

Becky Sramek • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

When Hollywood insults half of the country and then wants us to pay their salary, what does one expect?? I won’t go to the movie theater until Clint Eastwood and Gary Sinise make a movie!!

Becky • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I once saw Julia Roberts on TV at a Democrat fundraiser saying that she looked up the word Republican in the dictionary and that it was between reptile and repugnant. That did it for me. Hope all of those Democrats will buy your tickets.

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

They can’t.. not until their welfare cheques arrive.

SickOfConservatives • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

But the problem here, Becky, is: JULIA WAS RIGHT

Fred • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Meh, give her credit for cracking open a dictionary. Now someone send her a copy of “To the Actor.”

AmericaFirst • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I think the word was repulsive, not reptile, but I agree, since she offended half of her “fans”, she isn’t worth paying money to see and I haven’t.

any patriotic amercan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Amen. Movie stars should follow “classy” examples of old, such as Elvis Presley saying “I’m just an entertainer, Mam. I used to love Tom Hanks, until I learned of his political leanings. I no longer will spend my hard earned money supporting a communist supporting actor like Hanks! Boycott this movie, I beg you!

Hey Pal, take your dumb, conservative ass, and sit at home. I damn well don’t want you paying money to see MY film.

nutsaboutnutsosonline • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Who says Tom Hanks hates America? Your lens is foggy.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Let me get this straight: Tom Hanks, who went all over the country on his own initiative, helping raise money for the WW2 veterans memorial, has overnight become an enemy of the people? What kind of crack are you people smoking?

Deby • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Couldn’t have said it better American Patriot! We Patriots don’t even have to ‘boycott’, and it works! People like Julia and Tom don’t know how to think for themselves…..I’m jus sayin

Jerimiah • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Having grown up in Lufkin, Texas and knowing Charlie Wilson very well, all I can say is I’m not surprised Charlie Wilson’s War bombed. Hanks and Roberts are both great actors, but Hanks portrayal of Wilson sucked, I mean, really sucked!!! I have not seen Larry Crowne yet, but after reading how it did at the box office, not sure I want to waste my money.

Chance • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

America is no longer supporting liberal hollywood communists.

Tommy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Do all four of you posting here under different names think you’re impressing anyone or accomplishing anything? You’re anonymously ranting and railing on an internet comment board . . .to what purpose, exactly? If wasting your time like this floats your boat. . . have at it. You’re just embarrassing yourselves.

dl • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Shut up, Kyle. People can’t enjoy themselves because these horrible films are made for 12 year old’s in Japan.

If you’re making money from this film, more power to you. God Bless. Otherwise, this is complete garbage.

SallyinChicago • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I “used” to like Julia, but why is she still making movies? I think her boxo status has gone down a couple of notches. Hanks still is likeable but really needs strong material and supporting cast – (see Tom Cruise)…because by himself, he can’t open like he used to.
And, why did they open Larry in the summer along w/ Transformers? That’s a deal killer.

R May • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts have made good movies in the past but the idea of a grown man returning to college in these times of overpaid bumbling politicized American academia is definitely just out of touch with reality and real Americans. Haven’t Americans been taking out “entitlement loans for decades to do just that at ages in patterns that are more and more described by diminishing returns? There are many ways to improve oneself without giving the institutionalized idiots of Academia tens of thousands of dollars in debts backed by taxpayer funded loans.
The idea is similar to an aging over the hill man pathetically trying to regain his lost youth by dyeing his air (in this case with shoe polish). Hanks has drifted farther and farther into the extremes of politics and expression over the years and it is hoped that this disaster will be a wake-up call to an otherwise sometimes good actor.

Saturated • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Most people are tired of watching these Holliwood liberals try to get rich from the American public and than turn around and bad mouth the very system that has made them rich.
They feel they have their money so no one else should have the opportunites they grew up with.
Narcisistic elite.

8movies5plays • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I fell asleep three times and I wasn’t tired.

After two hours finally some drama with bumble bee.

They should have kept the amos and andy robots since everyone else was a stereotype from the Chinese guy to the black gunner to the super human rangers, airforce and seals.

Never again will I see a Bay film.

Total waste of time.

joe rizzuto • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

thank god hanks and roberts bombed and so did carrey who thinks hes copying dick van dyke..hope they get a very slow and painful death

John V. Karavitis • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

John V. Karavitis I saw Transformers 3, I’m sorry to say that it was totally a case of “CGI porn”. Yes, it was a typical Hollywood smash-em up movie, with lots of high-tech Autobot and Decepticon action, and, of course, the ever-present long-legged blonde hottie. But I got the feeling, right from the start, that this movie was just going to be a lot of CGI in your face, and I was proven correct. Maybe Transformers 3 is also a hit with the autistic crowd, perhaps more so with those rare individuals who go into seizures when they see a lot of flashing lights in sequence, etc. LOL! Just kidding! All in all, Transformers 3 was an okay movie, more suited for young teens. To each his own. John V. Karavitis, John Karavitis

Jackadoodle • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The best thing about Transformers 2 was the feeling of relief when I finally left the theater. I’ll sit this one out.

Art • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I’ll wait for the RiffTrax… they made the first two watchable.

giganticon • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You were right to. This thing WOULD NOT END.

Dr Snake • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

roflmao!

Laron K. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I find it hilarious Paramount is trying to do damage control on Digg by sponsoring positive reviews of the movie.

Looks like Bay and Shia lied when they said DOTM would be good.
Even the “good” reviews say the actions scenes are ruined by Bay’s trademark directing style, no suspense or tension, messy robot designs, and a huge lack of interest in the characters. Incoherent narrative and the movie is way too long with plenty of childish toilet humor like the last movie.

Laron k. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Reviews are mixed but definitely better than for Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen”

Reviews are mixed…
“Transformers Dark Of The Moon has a 37% Rotten Tomatoes rating. With an Average Rating: 4.9/10 Reviews Counted: 110, Fresh: 41, Rotten: 69. Consensus: Its special effects — and 3D shots — are undeniably impressive, but they aren’t enough to fill up its loud, bloated running time, or mask its thin, indifferent script.

Cars 2 has a better average Rating: 5.5/10 then Bay’s 3hr tech demo. These reviews don’t sound very mixed to me.
What ever.. Anyway if this doesn’t make a 800+ million, will Bay have a hissy fit and blame Paramount’s marketing?

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

One of the better reviews said “it drags on and on and on.. with bad dialogue and periods of tediousness that must have been made to provide restroom breaks for this 2 hr 20 minute, overlong fantasy. And once the robot fights start it is so indistinguishable that it looks like a hand full of silverware in a blender..”

Z • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This was the worst yet. Sure it looked phenomenal, but the rest was just awful.

How do you get one right then totally destroythw next two?

bmg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

A good question to ask the makers of the Matrix and Pirates trilogies as well.

jer • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Looks like we’re going to be able to add The Hangover to that list as well.

Nathan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

..And don’t forget Spiderman..

Drew • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Spiderman 2 was one of the best reviewed movies of 2004…

moviegoer • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I loved the first two movies, but wasn’t blown away by this one. The 3D was okay, but nothing like the “amazing” 3D they were touting. The story wasn’t very strong, and it got a little wonky for a while there on who knew what and what was goin’ on. Rosie seems like she’ll be an okay actress but i hated the scenes she was in merely for eye candy purposes. I really missed Megan and it needed a few more scenes with the parents – they are hilarious and usually add such a touch of fun to the films.

miss megatron • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The second, as has been explained here before, was a tragedy resulting from the writer’s strike. THIS ONE however was more an “ok” from development based on the fact that the last one had an incoherent story yet made boatloads of money.

Paramount knows the audience for this franchise is mostly men who don’t care about stories and just want to see pretty young chicks and explosions.

The time and money that would normally go toward story development went instead to visual development and the effects budget.

And most likely it will pay off. This IS a business after all.

Ben • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I said this one wouldn’t open as big as people thought. The second movie was horrendous and while Bay and company claim to admit that, the third movie looks exactly the same in the trailers, minus Megan Fox. Not even people in fly-over country are dumb enough to shell out cash after getting ripped off so badly in the second movie. Franchise-killer.

Henry • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Ahhh, ok Ben. “not even fly-over country are dumb enough”, this may be the dumbest comment I have ever read. Why do you think McDonalds and Wall Mart define our nation. This movie will be HUGE.

jer • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

These movies suck but they make a shit ton of money and will continue to do so until the bitter end. Asserting that they’re going to bomb or be financially unsuccessful is pure wishcasting.

WHY • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Why should CRAP movies make money? Don’t we deserve better? Don’t we deserve better from our politicians? You know Hollywood is tied into our politicians! That is why our movies and politicians SUCK!
There all in it together. Sucks, to be us. But, we have the money to buy tickets, SUCKS to be them!

Because They Own the World • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Walmart and McDonald’s define America because of how huge they are outside this country where the overwhelming majority of their money is made. it’s got nothing to do with the flyover states. how this movie does here won’t matter as long as it travels as well as big macs and low-priced goods.

Vernon Hardapple • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Yeah that’s clown shoes Ben. You’re better than that… I think.

leo • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Not even people in flyover country are dumb enough” Wow, can you be any more condescending. Newsflash: people on the coasts pay for the same crap that those of us in flyover country pay for. Get a clue.

Jon • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The “flyover” statement is true enough.

Why do you think Julia Roberts/Cameron Diaz/Tom Cruise still have careers?

People in N.Y./L.A. tend to give up on fading/fallen stars while the flyover states keep them afloat.

leo • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

No, you’re wrong. people all over the country have given up on those “stars” you mentioned. Movies like Knight and Day failed every where. That’s a very elitist statement to make.

cas127 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Elitist? Suggesting some membership in an “elite”?

No.

Stupid?

Yes.

JD • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Are you crazy? Roberts and Hanks are Hollywood leftists, it’s NY/LA keeping them in business. I predicted this film would flop because who was the audience supposed to be? That film was made for middle of the road, but sorry no one in the middle of the country is buying those two as the leads. They need to make a movie about AIDS or Obama loving.

bob wire • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Let Hanks and Roberts start living with the reputation they are casting out about themselves—and then coming to understand why people cant believe when they try to not “act” that way in a film. We all know what lies in their hearts now for real—a detestment for everything their parents generation stood for, fought for, accomplished, and worked for. My goodness look at the State they reside in—been to a Dodger game lately? I thought not. But in the Hanks and Roberts world (gated community, private security, surrounded by homogeneity)they want the rest of us to act like we love each other. Easy for them to say…try living among us sometime Julia and Tom, and then see where you’re positions stand.

You wont be going to any Dodgers game in the cheap seats, thats for certain. So dont try pushing it on us, or acting like you are something else in a film—you arent and we’re not buying it and neither are those who supposedly support and follow you.

carl • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

NY and LA alone cannot keep stars like Roberts, Hanks and Cruise afloat. My money is on it primarily being the middle-aged housewives between the coasts continuing to flock to their films.

And that does not necessarily make them “dumb” imo. These audiences grew up with these actors, and yes, they are behind the trends and the “new stars”. But once other actors become more well-known, they’ll be more apt to give up on the 90’s.

It happens all the time.

Conservative1 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hanks and Roberts, a couple of faded Hollywood Libs that my wife and I added to our “must not see” list long ago. What’s that Julie? Republican is between Reptilian and Reprehensible in the dictionary? We who have the money to buy movie tickets also have a very long memory.

Jon • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Wow, what a caveman you are, Leo. I pity you.

JD • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I think everyone outside of the coasts hates Hollywood leftists, and Hanks and especially Julia Roberts are poster children for the Hollywood left.
So when they are in movies that are basically ‘vehicles’ for their so-called charisma then the movies will flop. Hanks is more over the hill than hated, but Roberts you remember her liberal rants. So it’s very predictable that her movies will fail in the middle of the country.
They can still have hits if they aren’t primary the main course. I mean if they were in Transformers 3, people would still see the film.
Roberts and Hanks are as Hollywood as they come, so it’s laughable that people think it’s ‘flyover’ country keeping them in business.

Stacy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Add Jennifer Aniston to that list. How that woman keeps getting hired for movies when they all tank – unless she’s co-starring with an A-list male comedian – is beyond me. Not even the flyover zone are interested in her solo flix. How many flops does she get to have before someone in Hollywood says, “Ya know…I don’t think America’s that interested in paying money to see Rachel Green when they can watch her in reruns 15 times a day.”

mark • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I take offense at your comment about people on the coasts paying for the same crap as we in flyover country. These ENLIGHTENED coastal dwellers are stupid enough to pay MORE for the same crap. and proudly so.

The Clintidote • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Not even people in fly-over country are dumb enough to shell out cash after getting ripped off so badly in the second movie.”

You mean all those dumb people who FEED YOU? At least they provide an essential product, as compared to Hollywood freaks.

Chad • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Actually Clint, entertainment IS essential. Imagine a world without novels, tv shows, your favorite cartoon characters you grew up with…no music to listen to. Don’t underestimate the power of entertainment in all its forms.

Justin P. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It’s not as essential as food, Chad.

EmeraldAl • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Entertainment would still exist without Hollywood. It just wouldn’t be as over produced, overpriced, and commercialized as the echo chamber of crap the pseuds in hollywood produce. Hollywood is losing it with their over played formulas and group think.

RogerCfromSD • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I will take anyone from fly-over country over any self-important dweeb from Blue Country any day of the week.

HAMOOLI • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“You mean all those dumb people who FEED YOU? At least they provide an essential product, as compared to Hollywood freaks.”

Yo, Clint, dude. Imagine working all day, as you do, and then going home to relax. You sit on your couch and you turn on the TV. Surprise! Someone wrote, directed, and acted in your favorite show. You can just veg out and get your mind off your work because – Surprise! Hollywood worked all day. Same thing with your book newspaper, music cd. Somebody put this together. Gor you. Clint. So unless you want to work all day and then come home and look at your chickens again for entertainment. LAY OFF US!!! WE WORK ALL DAY FOR YOU!

cas127 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Go a day without food (or AC, or clothing, or the internet, etc.) and a day without TV and see which you care more about on the second day.

It is mind-boggling just how empty-headed and egotistical the Hollywood “community” is.

sup • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

No, you don’t work all day for us. You work all day for MONEY!!

Danny • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I got an idea, maybe it’ll settle the “fly over country” vs. “Hollywood freak” arguement. Let each one stop providing to the other one and let’s see where we’re all at in about a month.

dustin • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Flyover would win that. Obviously they’d just watch product they’d already bought which Hollywood made years ago if nothing new was available. It’s still entertainment.

Everyone else on the other hand could not live without the new machinery, foods, and other essential products flyover produces. I see the point now.

Greg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The civil war’s over, Danny. Your side lost.

Lisa • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

After watching some of the garbage Hollywood churns out nowdays, I would have to say the chickens would be more entertaining.

JimboLimbo • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Nope. The books I read are not written in Hollywood or New York, not penned by a crack team of union SAG writers (or whatever the writers union connection is-I have no reason to know, so don’t bother to correct me, you get the gist). When I watched the Dallas Mavericks take the championship, it wasn’t due to NYC or LA, and it didn’t take place there, either. The Texas Rangers aren’t in LA or NYC, either. I’ve got everything I need, right where I live, and much more of it comes from China than NYC or LA. Turn off my TV? See how long that lasts… Texas has plenty of production facilities, and they are growing by the day. Besides, if you turn off my TV, I’ll just work out more, drink more, shoot more, and screw more (other things, like the symphony, but that’s not in your stereotype of me). No love lost for Hollywood, here. Of course, you can think whatever you want about ‘working for me.’ Feel free to continue to pleasure yourself just thinking about how indispensable you are. On a more serious not, please go on strike, that way Texas can absorb an even bigger portion of the movie industry- maybe we’ll branch out into more TV production; most of all, some in your industry would see how the world won’t blink, but will continue on just as it did before TV and movies. The internet isn’t produced in Hollywood, either. The bottom line: Hollywood is going down the path of Charlie Sheen, all the while talking about how it’s winning.

sd • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You are clueless. Having production facilities in Texas means nothing. Every state and major city has them. But the power will always be in Hollywood, because that’s where the studios, agencies, etc. reside and will continue to reside.

Hate to break it to you and your ignorant conservative friends on this board: Hollywood is America’s number one export. You should support it instead of the Republicans who have zero problem letting our jobs get exported to China, Mexico, India and Pakistan.

gobacktosleep • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I live in California. We can feed ourselves. Here’s a deal–you keep your moronic political trends and dipshit politicians, AND your food, and we will do just fine without you.

Liv • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I bet that you aren’t even FROM California. Go back to the little hole you crawled out from. What was it? Canada?

And keep on speaking out, Hanks, and stand by your President. Clearly the FIRST AMENDMENT only works for TRAITOROUS, RIGHT-WING HATE SPEECH

I had no interest in Larry Crowne, but will now go see it just to spite you motherfuckers.

STFU • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Boy, won’t you be surprised when you find yourself in Mexico instead?

ktwoll • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Ever notice when the so called Elite try to show their intellegence they revert to name calling and profanity. If you try and make your point by using such profanity you have lost the debate. I’ve read all the threads and the arguments are all the same If you even live in a state that is considered “Fly over” country then automaticly your a redneck,bigot,republican,gun toting,bible thumping,hate,reactionary,archie bunker types; WOW! and you know nothing about who I am but you feel it is your right by purely living in a different reagion of the country you are some how uneducated, uncultured, hickseed, aka Beverly Hillbilly stereo type individuals. Oh you can’t be more wrong! Your whole comment speaks volumes about you though… If I had the choice of living amongst hollywood individuals and country folk I’m going to take the latter simply because they are more respectful and the majority of them could care less how much you make or your tastes in your movies. Yes we believe in our God and the decency provided in His word, I don’t need Hollywood to show me detailed sex scenes or someones head blown apart to know in real life it happens and it is even more disgusting than your make believe. Sure I am proud of the work Hanks has done to document the actions of the brave men and women who stood up to evil in WWII But when he rolls out views that are hateful to the country that has provided him with the opportunity to practice his trade and speak his mind then I have the same right to disagree with him. I disagree a majority of time with our current President just as the Blue States disagree with the last President. That friend has gone on with the politics of every nation, We have the “right” to be able to speak out without the fear of personal harm in any form. No one person though has an individual right to lead us in to Socialism or any other direction that is directly against the majority. Collectively “WE” choose the national direction not because one individual thinks America is evil. And that is why those in “Fly Over” country disagree with Hanks or Roberts. I have enjoyed both in films but I don’t need them to tell me how to vote or who to vote for if I disagree and withhold my money for one of their films that is “MY” choice to do so. If my idea’s are in line with theres that too would be my right to support them and the average individual’s preferances vary in just about anything you can think of.. such as I dislike GM but boy Honda makes a good car. I may purely favor Honda only because of a good experiance with it. Or I might not like GM because I hate having to bail out a private company. That does not make me a heartless or clueless individual. You would not know if I had been treated unfairly by GM in one way or another, maybe I was injured by their product, the list of negatives can go on and on about most things. But Hollywood like the Mom & Pop store all exist to do one thing and that is to turn a profit. If that is to appeal to one view point they will be paid or not paid because of the individual paying the ticket. I worked in the Theater Business for 32 years. I’ve seen films that went no where elsewear but here it was gangbusters and vise versa.
Someone mentioned Aniston as making nothing but loser films we had booked it as a fill in film to run until the summer blockbuster AIR FORCE ONE was released. Harrison Ford was the actor of the day then. the Aniston film in a two week run out grossed the summer blockbuster Harrison Ford was in. Did that make Ford pay in our community for something he said or did? Who knows? I can only say that the film tanked and at a time when the studio’s are charging you 70-90& of the gross you need a full house to come close to breaking even. Usually the theaters don’t make money on a film until it has run for a month and the terms are reduced. The Point is politics should not enter in to the business end because more than a single actor can be harmed by such actions. Most theater owners could careless what the actor(s) views are… they want a full house and the right to make their money too. THINK BEFORE YOU ACT.

Rob Calvino • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The “flyover states” stereotype is as played out and childish as all the other stereotypes that elitists turn their noses up at. The fact that you still use it means your’e not nearly as smart as you think you are. That kind of douchebaggery is embarrassing.

MMM • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Amen, brother.

Bob • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

What’s wrong with people in “Fly-over country?” Do you mean people that actually do important work for a living? Do you mean those stupid people like doctors, businessmen, builders, cleaning ladies, etc., you know the onese that make society go?

I hate to break it to you but entertainment isn’t important. Before you get all huffy with me, I’m a musician. What we do is not important in the grand scheme of things. I’ll bet anything I can pluck any 10 people in “fly-over country” and they’ll be more well-rounded and intelligent than you…even if they’re taste the arts isn’t up to your standards.

reality check • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

From what I’ve heard the more advanced and skilled from “flyover” areas make their way to LA and NY to make more money. Hence, the talent comes to the coasts.

notsurethismakesanysense • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

How do you figure that?

I was born in California, received my education in California, and have lived in California for my entire life.

If it wasn’t for wanting my four children to know their grandparents, I would have moved my family and my company out of this state years ago!

Escapee • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Even if they’re from Mississippi?

SoWhat • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Economy is not so bad down here in Fly Over Country. Part of it is not wasting money on once great actors like Hanks and Roberts.

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Roberts was never a great actress..

Watcher • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Saw it, actually had a plot to follow, it’s still a “Bay movie”, but you get the idea he really wanted to make up for the awful 2 ! But I have to say no robot balls , humping/ urinating robots or the offensive “Bro-Bots” in sight, the 3D is FANTASTIC & the last 30 minutes is worth the price of admission !!

It still has it’s share of eye rolling moments, but again …the last 30-45 mins are Epic !!

thanks, Watcher • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Thank you, Watcher, because I was wondering if those to idiot “bro-bot” stereotypes were going to be in this one. If they were, I was going to pass. Appreciate the heads up.

Watcher • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

No one who pays to go see a Transformers film should be expecting Hamlet, it’s a franchise based off of toy robots.

Well, Transformers is well worth your cash. Good summer movie. Yes, it has it’s flaws, but it gets the job done in terms of entertainment.

The experience wasn’t painful at all. I laughed and enjoyed the escapism, as did the rest of the theater.

JAMMED PACKED theater of PEOPLE CLAPPING at the end.

Yup, they’re all wrong, and you all the smug critics are correct, Ben. lol

Bob • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Amen! F–k these smug critics. When was the last time a critic made anything I ever liked? The Transformers movies, not great art but definitely great entertainment. It’s a franchise based on a toy robot cartoon. I’ll take that over “The King’s Speech” any day. You smug Hollywood types can have your art films but give me hot girls, hot cars, big explosions, fighting robots and an odd plot taken from some CARTOON EPISODES.

lara • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Bob, you are a moron. Bay is the archetype of the smug Hollywood type you so scathingly attack. I’m sure he is whistling all the way to the bank.

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Damned liar.. no one claps for movies anymore.. unless its a premiere..

AJD • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

And the first Pirates of the Caribbean was based off of a theme park ride, while The Dark Knight was based off of a comic book, and every Pixar film starts out with some outlandish, childish premise. It doesn’t preclude a film having compelling characters, subtext, or quality filmmaking. There is no premise so base where the audience shouldn’t at least expect competent storytelling when they shell out their hard-earned money… Especially for a film that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce.

Jamie • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Well said. I don’t think anyone expects Hamlet from summer movies, actually – which makes the “it’s just a summer movie!” excuse laughable, because summer movies are expected to be mindless fun at best and are given major points if they’re more than that. If a movie can’t even live up to such forgiving standards…

Haven’t seen this one, so I’m not commenting on it, just the trend in general.

and studios have been advertising on digg for a long time, welcome to the internet stupid

anotherwgamember • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

As a one-eyed writer, I am offended that I do not have a chance to see the film at the midnight advance showings because they are all 3D. There are plenty of other monoculists out there who are as pissed as I am.

Maybe I should sue under the Persons With Disabilities Act.

I’ve got my eye on you, Mr. Bay.

David • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

That gives me an idea for a new procedural– “The Monoculist”. He’s more than just another private i…

bobby the saint • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

RE: “The Monoculist” ?

that is hilarious, David. Thanks for the guffaw!

Bob • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Hilarious, however I was thinking more along the lines of a slasher movie with a $500 budget.

Isaac • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You know, you could have seen the movie anyway. If you put the 3-D glasses on, you will still be able to see the movie clearly, even with only one eye. It just won’t look like it’s in 3-D (just like nothing “looks like it’s in 3-D” for you).

Jess • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

We went to see the 9:30pm 3D screening of Transformers 3 last night at the Scotiabank Theatre in Toronto.

1. Best use of 3D since Avatar. Exceptional.

2. Michael Bay’s a great director. He has a special skill set that I’m not sure many others possess.

3. The screening was delayed by over 30 minutes for reasons unknown. Just a theatre full of people sitting in the dark, watching the projectionist fiddle with the size of the screen while he tried to find the ‘on’ button. Because of that, we missed all the trailers, including the new one for Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. Upset? Yes.

4. The screen was waaaay too dark in our screening, and the sound wasn’t turned up . By the middle of it, we were taking our glasses off, even during action sequences, because our eyes were getting so tired that we were falling asleep. Not figuratively, either. I was actually getting so tired that I was literally falling asleep until I’d take the glasses off. At the end of the film, I overheard at least two other people say that they were falling asleep, too. Anomalies? Maybe. But I felt great and awake whenever I took the glasses off.

5. My God. Someone give Michael Bay a good script to work with. There was no tension, no suspense. The action was terrific, but I didn’t care about any of it. And the robots all looked the same. Hard to keep track during fight sequences.

6. Bay has a tendency to rush his battles. There’s no sense of true triumph when they’re over. There’s no urge to fist pump furiously, which is what I want to do for my hero. I want to have the urge to cheer out loud. You never get that urge during a Michael Bay movie.

7. I’m assuming this will get rebooted in 10 years, which is great. The new ones will be so different that I don’t think anyone will mind that it’s another reboot. Hey, maybe Chris Nolan or Darren Aronofsky or Matthew Vaughn or Jon Favreau will be available by then? Please, God, not Zach Snyder. An art house director would be great, too, I think. Maybe an Anton Corbijn? Transformers meets The American: really, really long beautifully shot scenes of Optimus Prime methodically transforming. No? Fine. Nolan, Aronofsky, Vaughn, or Favreau, then. Or Scorsese. Or Spielberg or Cameron. Or JJ Abrams!! It’s too bad the Wachowskis could never produce something as good as the first Matrix.

8. Shia LaBeouf is fantastic in this. Best I’ve seen him recently. Great comic timing, too. And it was pleasant not having Megan Fox there. Blargh. Poor thing thought she actually had a career going. Lesson learned: never play the Hitler card too early.

9. Transformers 3 had potential, but they wasted a golden opportunity. And it’ll be the last movie I think I’ll see in 3D. I might not even bother watching Avatar 2 and 3 in 3D. And it’s not that they were careless with it. They weren’t. The 3D was fantastic. I think we’re all just over it. And want to watch bright images again, without getting tired. Not sure why/how that would seem unreasonable.

Jim • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The Mission Impossible trailer was horrible. If you saw the first three MI movies, you’ve already seen the new trailer.

Jon • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Michael Bay’s a great director.”

Funniest thing I’ve read all year.

Jons mom • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

of course it is, youve been reading the want ads for a new waiter job all year.

Justin P. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“Shia LaBeouf is fantastic in this.”

Are you two related?

JJ Gittes • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This LaBeouf kid will end up w/Jack Black`s career

Alboone • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It would’ve been a lot better if they chopped off a half hour. There was no excuse for that movie to be 2hrs and 37 minutes long. You felt the length which in turn made the experience overwhelming and I saw it in IMAX 3D to boot. By the time the credits rolled I was too happy to jet out of that theater.

Watcher • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

@ Ben – your choice…your loss, because the movie is fun

@AJD – I’ll give you Pirates being based off of a ride, but The Dark Knight is different, Batman comics have always been known for their great characters and story arcs, so naturally the adaptations would have more source material to draw from.

My expectations for Transformers (story wise) were never that high, always just wanted to see shit blow up and cool action scenes & that’s what I got

AJD • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

While I haven’t read or seen them myself, from my understanding there have been a series of Transformers comic books that are well regarded by fans for being complex and engaging… as well, there have been multiple television series made of the premise since the original.

It simply seems unfair to hold that the property is unable to expand beyond its roots as a toy line with a simplistic cartoon, ignoring everything else that has been done with it since, when Batman isn’t limited to his laughable portrayal in “The Superfriends”. The storytelling of those original Batman comics from the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were not particularly filled with great characters and story arcs by today’s standards, after we’ve seen decades of refinement for the comics medium, but obviously at some point the creative minds in charge of the property dug a little deeper and crafted the stories that inspired The Dark Knight.

It being 2011, there’s no particular reason Michael Bay should be striving to only match the storytelling quality of a cartoon from 20-30 years ago. A $200m production should be able to do significantly better.

inhumans99 • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It cracks me up that the film takes some cheap shots at Megan Fox (although that was to be expected), because critics are saying Megan Fox is like Meryl Streep compared to Rosie’s performance.

Jeff • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Critics also know jack shit. You’d have to be an idiot to think Fox was better.

Juan • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

You want to know who knows less than critics Jeff? YOU! People like you, easily amused by brain dead CGI.

JS • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

@Jeff, Well said. Rosie was better than Fox. Niether had much to work with, but Rosie was more charming in her use of it.

Critics sound like mid-westerners from what you say. How little you know.

Bob • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

WWWAAAAAA!!!! :(( PEOPLE LIKE CG AND IT MAKES ME SAD WWWAAAA :((

Harv • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This is funny. You have an “I’m smarter than you” attitude but, in refference to a Michael Bay movie, you criticize them for liking “brain dead CGI.”

It’s funny because Michael Bay likes doing things practically. Pretty much the only thing in the Transformers movies that’s CGI are the robots and other other-worldly stuff. Everything else, explosions, destruction, etc. was practical. So practical people almost died.

Hahahahaha.

Karl • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Critics are right on this one. Megan Fox is a bad actress but compared to the new one, she’s academy award worthy.

Page Falkenberg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

true..coulda been worse.. coulda been julia roberts..

tom • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

After reading many reviews and posts..cancelled the screening…will wait for the screener.

Great effects and sound at a brutal level just isn’t enough…maybe, if Megan Fox had returned for some phenomenal nude shots…some one could twist my arm to see her ‘effects’ on a big screen in 3D.

For those who enjoy ‘theme park’ filmmaking…it sounds like this is perfect. ..but, for some of us…there is a limit on robots, explosions, little story, and all the other Bay tricks all brought to you at level that actually can give one a headache.

Pass.

Jeff • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

The movie was a blast. Shame you’ll miss out on such a fun theater experience.

markLouis • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

>‘theme park’ filmmaking

The only reason I ever went to an amusement park was because I was hoping a girl named MaryJo would ride with me on the Mad Mouse. She never did so ‘theme park’ filmmaking doesn’t create good feelings in me.

Even if MaryJo had sat next to me for all that bumping around, I think I’d find the whole marketing gimmick of ‘theme park’ filmmaking to be the strangest, most desperate attempt to grab an audience I’ve ever heard.

Are we going to see a re-make of “The Conversation” done up as a ‘theme park’ film? (3D zooming around people being recorded, sound crew giving sound-bites about audio technology…)

Matt B. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

About this 7.1 soundtrack: I wouldn’t call less than 10% of theaters “many” showing it in 7.1 and I dare you to find ANY advertising for this new sound format, which isn’t so “new” as it debuted last summer on Toy Story 3. If you do go to the trouble of searching for a 7.1 theater on Dolby’s website, you still have no idea, when you get to the multiplex, which of the 3 or 4 or 5 auditoriums showing your movie is actually wired for 7.1 – don’t ask the minimum wage kids taking tickets, they don’t know, don’t care. You might think Dolby would have learned something when they did this same dance for EX (their matrixed 6.1 format) back when Phantom Menace released in 1999. But no – FAIL!

Rish Outfield • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Wow, I’d never heard of this new sound format. Does it have an extra bass channel, or a new center speaker? I feel a little out of the loop, since I didn’t know about 7.1, and I didn’t hear about the new “Toy Story” short last week.

sweden • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

I just came home from the first screening here in Sweden, and I have to apologize to everyone for what I’ve said about 3D. I’ve been a huge supporter of 3D ever since I saw Avatar the first 6 times, and I’ve made fun of people who said 3D was crap.

The fact is that in this movie, 3D works AGAINST the movie. The millions of blurry little 3D objects flying at the screen fatigues your eyes and your mind to the point where you are just wishing for the movie to be over. If you are going to see this movie, you will appreciate it more if you see it in 2D.

Justin P. • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Wow, you saw Avatar six times?? Insane.

Etoile • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

3D IS crap and Transformers 3/Harry Potter are the last Tent Poles for this fading medium.

If you want to spend SEK 150 to watch 1950s technology, more fool you. If you don’t believe me, look at the stock price of the 3D tech companies, some of them are off 40% in recent months.

Dave • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

This movie will sail past 200 million dollars in its first 7 days. While its not the best movie in the series it is a lot better than the second movie and the action is by far the best.

Sourabh • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Movie wasn’t as bad as the second, the lack of Megan Fox was a surprisingly welcome change. And Michael Bay sure has perfected the art of objectifying woman without being too creepy.

Fred • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

It sounds like most of you have not even SEEN the movie yet, or went into it with your ROTF glasses still on. This movie was awesome, and the Sentinal Prime twist was awesome.

jfro • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Its popcornie fun as long as you are literally not expecting to use a single braincell but the movie is still a mess (but definitely NOT as bad as FOTF.)

So much has been made of this being the best 3D since AVATAR and that this is not your normal 3D, its “MICHAEL BAY’S 3D.” Give me a break. Most the other movies didn’t have anything that really warranted 3D so the bench mark is kind of low here.

Not looking forward to the Paramount/Transformers jerk-off updates every 20 minutes for the next 7 days as promised. Let the spin begin.

Gray • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Judging by the fact that it made more after midnight than earlier in the evening when it only played in 3D would suggest to me that people would rather watch a 2D movie in the middle of the night than go see it in 3D at a more reasonable hour. Ouch!

Book Guy • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Just so very tired of LOUD POUNDING movies that SCREAM at me and blow shit up. Just can’t do it anymore.

BrandonL • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

Impressive!!! well i was hoping for a opening day of $70 Million!!! But with the midnight gross doing $8 Million Dark of the Moon is on pace for an opening day of $66 Million. Which is still pretty cool!!!

bmg • on Jul 4, 2011 8:01 am

“$200M Next?”

Not by the end of Sunday, that’s for sure, and probably not even by the end of the long weekend on Monday.

Each film in a series is typically more front-loaded than the last. T3’s opening night is almost 20% behind T2’s, even with additional screenings at 9pm and that 3D charge.

Maybe $90 million for the 3-day weekend, $105 for the 4-day? $180 total by the end of the long weekend on Monday?